Re: Law Enforcement

JeanLouiseFinch · ‎10-03-2011

RE: Last night's new conversation on The Interview Room

Chris' guests included the usuals; John Lamb, Gary Brucatto, Don Ahrens, and occasional guest Dan Stover. Collectively they have 100+ years experience in law enforcement. Based on what they know and their years of experience, without saying the name and making an outright accusation, it's obvious who they all think is involved.

As it often happens with these discussions, it was a lot of rehashing of already known information. Brucatto went through some examples of how LE hones in on a suspect. Something I thought was interesting was how each of the guests on the panel answered as to how they would have responded if they were the one who received the call to go to the scene - all would have acted similarly. From the moment they arrive, they are thinking about the potential court case that could eventually happen. They know the questions that will be asked, they know how defense lawyers will pick things apart so getting everything right, right from the start, is essential. They all went through how they would observe the scene, how they would preserve the scene, what they would take into evidence, how they would separate individuals for questioning, etc. and how their career long practices were in direct contrast to what actually happened. The Guthrie case was a total screw up from the beginning. The homicide detective and investigator assigned to manage the scene had no experience. That's a leadership failure. Overlooking evidence and releasing the scene too early was a mistake and the commander should have corrected that. The panel also agreed that when the home was released back to the family all evidence would have/should have been collected so the home should have been cleaned for them, such as removing the blood from the porch rather than allow it to remain and create the public media spectacle. They also would have restricted all the media from staying on Nancy's street for days and weeks.

So, not much new but I still find it interesting when they state the questions they would ask, how they detail the LE's flaws and failings, and what does and doesn't make sense.

JeanLouiseFinch · ‎10-03-2011

@elated wrote:
@JeanLouiseFinch wrote:
The Interview Room - a new panel discussion on evidence drops tonight, in a little over an hour as of this posting timestamp.

Knowing how long they go, I took a nap this afternoon so I'd be able to stay up. 😊
@JeanLouiseFinch I listened to part of it but fell asleep. I will say one thing for these long podcast, they are good for putting you to sleep. Sometimes, I skip through all the introductions and some self promotions to get to the meat of the subject. I will wait for your review.

@elated Those intros are repetitive but I understand why they have to do it. If I hadn't taken a nap yesterday afternoon I probably wouldn't have lasted for the entire program.

elated · ‎06-09-2010

@JeanLouiseFinch wrote:
RE: Last night's new conversation on The Interview Room

Chris' guests included the usuals; John Lamb, Gary Brucatto, Don Ahrens, and occasional guest Dan Stover. Collectively they have 100+ years experience in law enforcement. Based on what they know and their years of experience, without saying the name and making an outright accusation, it's obvious who they all think is involved.

As it often happens with these discussions, it was a lot of rehashing of already known information. Brucatto went through some examples of how LE hones in on a suspect. Something I thought was interesting was how each of the guests on the panel answered as to how they would have responded if they were the one who received the call to go to the scene - all would have acted similarly. From the moment they arrive, they are thinking about the potential court case that could eventually happen. They know the questions that will be asked, they know how defense lawyers will pick things apart so getting everything right, right from the start, is essential. They all went through how they would observe the scene, how they would preserve the scene, what they would take into evidence, how they would separate individuals for questioning, etc. and how their career long practices were in direct contrast to what actually happened. The Guthrie case was a total screw up from the beginning. The homicide detective and investigator assigned to manage the scene had no experience. That's a leadership failure. Overlooking evidence and releasing the scene too early was a mistake and the commander should have corrected that. The panel also agreed that when the home was released back to the family all evidence would have/should have been collected so the home should have been cleaned for them, such as removing the blood from the porch rather than allow it to remain and create the public media spectacle. They also would have restricted all the media from staying on Nancy's street for days and weeks.

So, not much new but I still find it interesting when they state the questions they would ask, how they detail the LE's flaws and failings, and what does and doesn't make sense.

@JeanLouiseFinch Thank you for your review.

Daludog · ‎02-05-2011

I found it interesting when Dr Brucato gave his profile of the person responsible. They all think the porch guy was "the waiter" not the brains of the abduction. If you missed any, it was long, on you tube they have just Dr Brucato's 20 minute explanation of his profile.

San Antonio Gal · ‎05-18-2017

@JeanLouiseFinch - Thanks for keeping us posted. You mentioned it's obvious they know who's involved. Who are they talking about?

JeanLouiseFinch · ‎10-03-2011

@San Antonio Gal wrote:
@JeanLouiseFinch - Thanks for keeping us posted. You mentioned it's obvious they know who's involved. Who are they talking about?

@San Antonio Gal They can't name anyone specifically, in order to protect themselves, but they way they say things and imply things, it's clear to me that they think it's the son-in-law. He may or may not be the "porch guy". If he isn't, he could be the mastermind.

San Antonio Gal · ‎05-18-2017

@JeanLouiseFinch wrote:
@San Antonio Gal wrote:
@JeanLouiseFinch - Thanks for keeping us posted. You mentioned it's obvious they know who's involved. Who are they talking about?
@San Antonio Gal They can't name anyone specifically, in order to protect themselves, but they way they say things and imply things, it's clear to me that they think it's the son-in-law. He may or may not be the "porch guy". If he isn't, he could be the mastermind.

Thanks @JeanLouiseFinch .

manny2 · ‎05-24-2010

@Daludog wrote:
I found it interesting when Dr Brucato gave his profile of the person responsible. They all think the porch guy was "the waiter" not the brains of the abduction. If you missed any, it was long, on you tube they have just Dr Brucato's 20 minute explanation of his profile.

It was interesting. People behave predictably under stress, and this guy didn’t. His comfort level was completely out of proportion to the situation.

tends2dogs · ‎05-08-2010

@JeanLouiseFinch The way you wrote that, is it you not saying the name or did they not say it? Did they drop hints?

It sounds as if there was an utter lack of training on the part of the LE and the investigation team. How can that happen? I wonder how common that is in other locations.

Thanks for the review.

Fear not Brothers and Sisters! I have read THE BOOK..........we win!!!

JeanLouiseFinch · ‎10-03-2011

@tends2dogs wrote:
@JeanLouiseFinch The way you wrote that, is it you not saying the name or did they not say it? Did they drop hints?

It sounds as if there was an utter lack of training on the part of the LE and the investigation team. How can that happen? I wonder how common that is in other locations.

Thanks for the review.

The panel, @tends2dogs, is being very careful not to say anyone's name. Sometimes they will throw out other possibilities in order to seem fair and open, but it's still clear to me what they think. I'm sure they're being careful about how they say things so they can't be sued. Most everything they do say and questions they pose makes the implication though.